Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation & the Health Professions
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Norcini, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Day, S. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Norcini, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Day, S. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Use of Aggregate Scoring for a Recertifying Examination

John J. Norcini

Judy A. Shea

Susan C. Day

American Board of Internal Medicine

Aggregate scoring derives weights for the responses to test questions that are the proportion of a criterion group of experts; examinees' test scores are simply the sum of the weights of the responses they choose. This study applied aggregate scoring to a recertifying examination where it is particularly useful. It is an efficient means of generating an answer key, it ensures that the answer key reflects differences in practice, and examinees may find it reassuring to be judged against the performance of their peers. Results indicated considerable agreement between the traditional answer key and the aggregate answer key. Although the scores produced by the two answer keys were similar, aggregate scoring slightly favored individuals out of training longer. Generalizability analyses (Brennan, 1983) produced the expected results. The use of several experts in aggregate scoring made a sizeable contribution to reduction in measurement error. The choice of either completely crossed designs or nested designs for collecting the responses of experts depends on the resources available.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 13, No. 2, 241-251 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/016327879001300207
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 jvmeHome page
C. S. Smith
A Developmental Approach to Evaluating Competence in Clinical Reasoning
J Vet Med Educ, September 1, 2008; 35(3): 375 - 381.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 SURG INNOVHome page
S. H. Meterissian
A Novel Method of Assessing Clinical Reasoning in Surgical Residents
Surgical Innovation, June 1, 2006; 13(2): 115 - 119.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Eval Health ProfHome page
B. Charlin and C. van der Vleuten
Standardized Assessment of Reasoning in Contexts of Uncertainty: The Script Concordance Approach
Eval Health Prof, September 1, 2004; 27(3): 304 - 319.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
D. J. Brailer, E. Kroch, and M. V. Pauly
The impact of Computer-assisted Test Interpretation on Physician Decision Making: The Case of Electrocardiograms
Med Decis Making, February 1, 1997; 17(1): 80 - 86.
[Abstract] [PDF]